Late 4th Ed Review.
Introduction
Here is my final review of 4th edition. It is somewhat late as the game was released a few weeks ago but I wanted some of the controversy to die down. Also I wanted to give it a go first. When 4th ed was announced I thought me. To me it was released about a year maybe 2 to early for me to be comfortable with personally. I also wasn’t overly happy at WoTC for the Dragon and Dungeon magazines being killed, and I thought the quality of 3.5 books had taken a nosedive for the last couple of years. Overall I was slightly negative towards 4th. I bought it anyway so I would at least know what people were talking about and although I really likes 3.5 to me it was more or less unplayable at high levels without a lot of work- house rules and clever adventure design being required along with a lot of time. Anyway I’ll mention the positives, then the negatives and finish off with a conclusion. I usually DM and rarely play D&D regardless of edition and I’ve played basic, 2nd ed, 3.0 and 2.5 with a small amount of 1st ed as well but not to the extent of the other systems. For the most part I liked 3.5 a lot.
Positives.
Overall I was reasonably impressed with the appearance of the books. The art was above average for the most part, excellent in places even. 4th ed I think is probably the prettiest edition of D&D yet. The rules were reasonably easy to figure out and I explained them to my players with little effort. They were similar enough to 3.5 that we weren’t totally lost. The Dungeon Master Guide in particular I thought was probably the best DMG yet in all the editions yet. The encounter construction rules and treasure table rules IMHO are better than 3.0 and 3.5.
The Monster Manual was a bit different and my 1st impressions were that a few of the monsters had to many hit points. It was shocking to see level 1 goblins with 25 hit points, and a 3rd level white dragon with 200. I had to do some reading up on monster roles. I wasn’t to impressed at first as it was different but in essence the monster roles were similar to 3.5. A giant in 3.5 was essentially a brute, spell casters were controllers, sneaky stuff was lurkers and high AC brutes were soldiers. I talked about the monster roles with one of my players and he started giving me advice which was already in the Dungeon Masters Guide about the monster tactics.. Most of the tactics were reasonably intuitive but I’ve DMed a lot of games over the years and for a less experienced player I thought it was a great read and enjoyed it.
We tested a couple of skirmishes out to try out the rules but for my 1st proper game with all my players present I decided I would design my own adventure. I spent around an hour drawing a 20 room dungeon and scattered some traps onto it. It took around 2 hours to stock the dungeon with a variety of goblins. The MM in particular was great in this regard as in 3.5 terms they had goblin warriors, fighter, scouts, barbarians and adept already statted up for you in the DMG. I wrote some fluff, and rang one of the players to find out what he wanted to play. I also spent about 50 minutes statting out a wizard for my friend and an NPC Rogue to help them out as we only had a 3 member party. 3 hours to design a 1st level adventure with about an hour.
The 2 hours to fill up the dungeon with traps, treasure and monsters also included a small coffee break and “Tag Time”. I have a B/W cat named Tag who we rescued from the animal shelter he is quite cute. How that is relevant to D&D eludes me but he seems to enjoy the extra human slaves, erm friends that turn up to play in the weekend. Compared to 3.5 I was really impressed with the prep time required. Try making up an NPC rogue on the fly for example in 3.5. To be honest I was more than impressed. For the 1st time in a long time I had a ball designing an adventure. I also really liked minions and added lots of them. All I had to do was wait for my players to turn up and kick in the door.
The session.
As a DM I had a blast. 4th ed rules impressed me a lot from behind the screen and 2/3 players had fun while the other one had fun with reservations (see the negative part of the review below). We played from 3pm through to 11pm and I had work the next day at 8am while my last remaining player from my group from 10 years ago had work at 5am. The PCs got through 7-8 encounters and used up most if their healiong surges. They got the fight of their life from basic goblins and the Paladin took a bit of a beating from them being reduced to negative hit points several times. They kicked their way through my dungeon in around 6 hours and I had to wing it for the remaining time. The monsters have been well designed and I love the minion rules. The game had a very 1st ed or basic D&D feel where you could come across large numbers of cannon fodder that while challenging or dangerous wasn’t a walk through or TPK waiting to happen that 3.5 seemed to be.
Combat seemed to be quite fluid with minis moving around a lot more that 3,5 and most monsters I used seemed to have special abilities. With goblins they seemed to be like 3.5 rogues and scouts moving and bouncing around while hordes of minions run in to flank or get the off hit in. Everyone seemed to contribute. The Dragonborn Paladin was good at clearing out minions and soaking up damage while the Cleric was a “laser” Cleric who stayed back and healed, moved and attacked in the same turn and generally buffed the PCs as well. The rogue was in the thick of it on the front line while the wizards area based spells whittled down the monsters hit points and cleared out minions very well. My PCs were joking among themselves. I heard the following comments in game. “Next time I play I want to be a goblin” or “Screw this next time we get hired to clear out goblins we’ll do an easier job like hunting Dragons”.
I haven’t seen Goblins chew up PCs like that since an old 1st ed Dungeon adventure we done that was a trap infested hell hole. Goblin brutes that hit for 1d10+5 or 2d10+5 with 50+ hit points are kinda nasty. The Paladin copped a critical hit from one of those gobos that was blooded and went into negatives for the 3rd or 4th time. They all seemed to be enjoying it though. Once the goblin lair was done I had to wing it as they got through it quicker than I thought. I loved the minion rules as well. On the fly I created a Wight Barrow while the PCs were interacting with NPC in the town of Wycliff. The major rewarded them with an old run down farmhouse and a small plot of land in town. The PCs learnt of an ancient tomb locked up for generation. The Mayor conveniently had the key and handed it over. The PCs had leveled up by then and spent several encounters fight various skeletons including a burning one that exploded as a fireball when killed. One of my PCs had a laptop with a copy of the leaked monster manual PDF on it and exclaimed “they don’t do that when killed” My response was “That one did”. Since I was winging it the 2nd last encounter was a 4th level encounter and was 4 Deathlock Wights. Since I was winging it I didn’t quite realize how nasty 4 of them all with animate dead abilities were- they could all reanimate each other when destroyed as a minor action. On the way out the Dragon statue they passed earlier animated and was a Young White Dragon in stasis which they had to fight.. I didn’t enjoy this encounter as much as a DM as the Dragon was a solo encounter and I didn’t use any minions. Not sure if I’ve mentioned it before but I really like the minion rule.
Overall I really liked 4th ed from behind the screen and the MM and DMG are very good once you understand them and the guidelines on how to construct an encounter. It reminded me a lot of the old D&D Rules Cyclopedia for some reason. From behind the screen 4th ed was a lot better than 3.5.
The Negatives.
Overall I like 4th ed but its not perfect and has some things in it I don’t like. Theres been a lot of complaints claiming 4th ed isn’t D&D. I’ll comment on that later but I can see where they’re coming from. 3.5 had some issues as well such as high level play but the designers of 3rd ed put a lot of effort into carrying on the D&D cosmology while throwing out 20 year old mechanics. Getting rid of the Great Wheel wasn’t something they had to do and is really only going to annoy some of the older playres who in my experience also tend to be the DMs. It also makes some of the older worlds confusing. If the new cosmology is used in the Forgotten Realms for example it’s the 3rd time in 3 editions the cosmology has been changed and the Realms has a successful novel line. Rom the sounds of the changes they’re making in the realms it doesn’t appeal to me personally which is what I suspect some of the people who do like the Great Wheel have to deal with. I don’t think Planescape fans in particular are going to like the Shadowfell or whatever. It wasn’t something they needed to do and is only going to upset a lot of D&D players.
The players handbook also isn’t the easiest PHB I’ve ever read. However I think it is the right time to mention I really like the minion rules. Chapter 4 is over a 100 pages long with lists of powerz that aren’t the easiest to read. Also the first time I read it I thought the layout was poor. For example the powerz description in chapter 4 has something like 2W+ XYZ effect and I was wondering “what the hell is 2W? Of course you find out 5 chapters later in chapter 9. Also the starting gold I thought would be in the equipment section or class description was buried in a paragraph at the start of the book and the index being 1 page long doesn’t help that much. I had to read the section of wizards acquiring rituals a few times to figure it out (so did my wizard player). Not such a huge issue once you figure it out but it could have been easier.
Another low point of the book is the races and classes both of which are kinda boring. Looking at the races in the PHB and MM it’s a very basic design most of which are something similar to +2 to 2 ability scores, +2 to a skill or 2 and a racial power. At least its more or less balanced though. The classes themselves are also very bland with even a lot of powerz being very similar form clas to class and most of them are deal XYZ damage and have some effect. I 2nd ed and 3rd ed Clerics/Priests for example could be drastically different depending on which god you worshiped. The only difference mechanically between clerics of different gods is the option of taking a faith based feat. One of my players also commented on this as he likes odd stuff (like 3.5 monks) and he thought the classes were somewhat boring and focused on combat to much. An example would the Rogue. In game or NPC rogue was trained in thievery but her perception role sucked. The standard array only really gives you 2 good scores (a 14 and 16) and the rogue needs at least one of them in dex and the other in cha or str. Our rogue had a massive +6 perception roll about equal to the cleric who was untrained. The cleric took the multiclass ranger feat and is now trained in perception and is a lot better at finding traps. The classes are more or less balance combat wise in their role but the Rogue sucks at finding traps it seems as the skill DCs for more than a few skills are quite high. The Rogue is planning on taking skill focus perception and I think she will still be outclassed by the cleric at finding traps. Most of the non combat spells have been removed form 4th ed as well. In previous editions I did play enchanter wizards with no damage dealing spells/powerz whatsoever and yet you could still be effective in combat. I would use spells in social interactions as well such as casting dancing lights when my character was taking an NPC out for diner or whatever. In 4th ed I’ll have to settle for using a magic missile on the date.
Overall I really liked the minion rules though. Some of the suggested build seem wrong as well and I suspect most people will focus on one path or the other when they select their powerz and 2nd highest score. A Devoted Cleric for example will probably take the wisdom based powerz and ignore the battle cleric type powerz. I wouldn’t actually play the battle cleric in a level 1 game as at best you can have a 15 AC unless you don’t mind wearing light armor, no shield and have a high dex (AC 16 with 16 dex, and hide armor). The Paladin was getting dropped multiple times with an AC of 20 at level 1 so surviving on the front lines with a battle cleric may require a bit of luck. I don’t think forcing the classes into a role was a great idea. In 3.5 I saw clerics in each role (defender/striker/leader/controller) and even archer clerics which can probably be done in 4th ed as well if you’re an elf and take a few multiclass feats as a Ranger. There is not really much in the way of options when constructing a 4th ed character although there is an illusion of freedom. I have doubts about how much fun 4th ed will be once the nice shiny feeling wears off.
I thought the core rules should at least have included the Druid, but I can understand that they had space limits. I suspect the missing classes and races will be in the PHB2 which hopefully won’t be far away. Then again I suppose basic D&D didn’t have the Druid either (at first anyway). I did like the minion rules though.
While not really part of the core rules on day one I bought the core rules I went to sign up for D&D insider. Oops doesn’t work and still isn’t there. I was interested in looking at least mostly for Dragon and Dungeon magazine but WoTC didn’t impress me with the 1st few “issues” they released. Think I’ll pass on the DDI.
Overall.
I like 3.5 and I also like 4th ed- shocking I know. I also like the minion rules. I had a lot of fun playing 4th ed and it plays better than it looks. Is it D&D though? If I had to compare it to 3.5 I would be inclined to say no. However to me it reminds me a lot of D&D basic which didn’t have a lot of races and classes 2nd and 3rd ed had and it didn’t have the great wheel cosmology either. 4th ed the great leap backwards- which may not be a bad thing. All my players commented on its resemblance to World of Warcraft which I couldn’t comment on as I don’t play WoW.I wouldn’t say 4th ed is a video game on paper but I think there is some influence there. If I had to pick one video game it did resemble it wouldn’t be WoW but an old Sega RPG from the days of the Genesis/Megadrive and an updated version was released on the Gameboy Advance. The game was called Shining Force which was a tactical RPG where you had elves and Dwarves, Birdmen etc and they could move 5-8 squares and unleash a basic attack or special power. After 14 odd years I still break out Shining Force 1 or 2 and play it on occasion as it is awesome and the Gameboy version is a great way to kill time at the airport. The downside of Shining Force however is that it doesn’t have rules on minions.
Overall I think 4th ed has the potential to be better than 3.5. It does have some improvements over 3.5 but in some ways it is bland and I’m not sure if it will still be fun 1 year down the track. I think most of the problems from my POV can be fixed with a splatbook. The missing classes and races would be a good start but hopefully some variant paths the classes can go down at level 1 like dex based fighters for example. Ion comparing the 2 systems I think the fairest thing I can say is I would prefer to play 3.5 but DM 4th ed. Hell I might even say 4th ed is bettet than 3.5 for one very simple reason. 3.5 doesn’t have minion rules.
Hi, thanks for your DMs view review!
I have a question though: What do you think of the Minion rules? Do you like them?
Minions are like cookies. Dark, evil, and tasty. One can never get enough.
Hi, thanks for your DMs view review!
I have a question though: What do you think of the Minion rules? Do you like them?
LOL!
Hi, thanks for your DMs view review!
I have a question though: What do you think of the Minion rules? Do you like them?
Minions rock the party.
I have already heard 'oh thats just a minion' though.. so it's time for some really really evil minion encounters. Maybe a low level controller who can suicide his minion allies like little bombs.
Your reference to Shining Force (awesome series, btw!) reminds me of something a player at my table lamented last game. He wanted "cross" area attacks. If you've played Shining Force (or similar games) you probably know what he meant, but if not, his complaint was basicly:
He had an attack with this pattern
X X X
X O X
X X X
but wanted an attack with this pattern
X
X O X
X
Hehe, I guess not that OT, sorry. Thanks for the review though. Glad you enjoyed it! :)
Your reference to Shining Force (awesome series, btw!) reminds me of something a player at my table lamented last game. He wanted "cross" area attacks. If you've played Shining Force (or similar games) you probably know what he meant, but if not, his complaint was basicly:
He had an attack with this pattern
X X X
X O X
X X Xbut wanted an attack with this pattern
X
X O X
XHehe, I guess not that OT, sorry. Thanks for the review though. Glad you enjoyed it! :)
Too bad wall wouldn't work for that.
Doh! I tried to format that right but it looks like the board threw it away. The second example is supposed to be like a plus, not a sideways T. Stupid computers, not reading my mind! :P
|
Hi, thanks for your DMs view review!
I have a question though: What do you think of the Minion rules? Do you like them?
Minions rock the party.
I have already heard 'oh thats just a minion' though.. so it's time for some really really evil minion encounters. Maybe a low level controller who can suicide his minion allies like little bombs.
Probably not that hard to make a low-level devil with that ability.
A very detailed and honest review. Pretty much sums up my feelings as a DM/Player exactly (except for writing encounters, which I haven't done). However, I do not like the minion rules.
I see nothing. David Marks must be crazy in two replys.
EDIT: <knock> <knock> <knock>
A good, fair review. And five hours without a flame strike. That must be a record.
Knock on wood...
You brought the bad ju-ju Duncan! Take it back, take it back! :P
|
Is it D&D though? If I had to compare it to 3.5 I would be inclined to say no.
No flame strike here. I also thought it was a good, fair review.
I've just always felt that dungeons and dragons was one of the epic cornerstones for many of the brilliant incredible developments in the gaming industry, and other industries worldwide. I never imagined that anyone would someday retro-engineer the game this way to reselemble one of it's children like video games and WOW.
Thanks for the review.
Personally as a 3.5 player and someone who has played 4th I have to say that at first level minions are harder to beat than solo monsters. Minions do rock the house, but I still like 3.5 better. Of course it doesn't help that the usual DM in our corner of the DnD universe came up long ago with meaningful minions and so 4th didn't do a whole lot for me. It is, incredibly, a lot like WoW. It is fairly fun to play but it has lost more of the special flavor that DnD is known for with it's changes. Options are as you said an "illusion". Chose, you are either a archer ranger or a two weapon fighting ranger. No wiggle room for something else. Also magic is no longer something that a wizard can use for fun, and generalist wizards are S.O.L in their former roles. The rituals for magics that aren't done in combat are not worth the time it takes to cast them. While it make take a wizard all of 6 seconds to cast a spell to alter the battle field, it takes ten minutes to open a door with knock. The purpose of a specialized wizard is to be like a swiss army knife, but with the 4th edition rules it's like a swiss army knife that was made to work only with Vista. I don't know, maybe I'm just resistant to change.
Congratulations! You made your saving throw. J/k
I have a Staff-implement eladrin wizard IMC that is going for the sword implement from the paragon path. She is both a blast and controller type wizard and she works very well at both.
Zardnaar,
Thanks for the review. It was well-considered and I enjoyed reading it.
To the point of using terminology for mechanics that are not introduced until 5 chapters later, the AD&D books were notorious for that. Perhaps that is a throw-back to those simpler times? ;)
More likely, it is simply bad layout, however. If I had to guess, I'd say that whoever final edited the PHB was probably too close to the content and simply forgot to look at the book from a new players perspective.
Best to you.
I have already heard 'oh thats just a minion' though.. so it's time for some really really evil minion encounters. Maybe a low level controller who can suicide his minion allies like little bombs.
Time for the tougher monsters to wise up and insert themselves amongst the minions and/or adopt whatever visible characteristics the minions have that are making the party recognize them and say "Oh, that's just a minion."
After the first couple of times what looks to be a minion turns out to be a tougher monster hiding amongst minions, some of the trepidation will return :)
I remember one of the first 3E session I ran with kobolds. The party was about 5th level and they ran into a group of kobolds. They said "hell, it's just kobolds." Unfortunately, one of the kobolds was a vampire. That livened things up in a hurry, and whenever kobolds or other lowbies were encountered in the future there was always a sense of "well, they're just lowbies...but..."
I never imagined that anyone would someday retro-engineer the game this way to reselemble one of it's children like video games and WOW.Well, fortunately for you they didn't do that.
Just to make sure, Cross.
You are saying that Hasbro did not design this edition **at all** to resemble video games and online RPG's in order to appeal to that potential customer base?
Not sure you will get too many people, even those who are rabid pro-4e to agree with that.
Did I misunderstand your statement?
Zardnaar,
Thanks for the review. It was well-considered and I enjoyed reading it.
To the point of using terminology for mechanics that are not introduced until 5 chapters later, the AD&D books were notorious for that. Perhaps that is a throw-back to those simpler times? ;)
More likely, it is simply bad layout, however. If I had to guess, I'd say that whoever final edited the PHB was probably too close to the content and simply forgot to look at the book from a new players perspective.
Best to you.
I feel that this is the major issue of the new edition. I love all the new mechanics, the game play styles, and the philosphy behind the design, but the way they laid out the books is really bad.
Once you've read the entire book, the rules are sleek and very good. But that first read through, there's a bit to much muddling through the details.
Just to make sure, Cross.
You are saying that Hasbro did not design this edition **at all** to resemble video games and online RPG's in order to appeal to that potential customer base?
Not sure you will get too many people, even those who are rabid pro-4e to agree with that.
Did I misunderstand your statement?
Not Cross, but I'd make that claim as well. There are one or two aspects that seem like they might have originated in MMORPGs first, but the vast majority of what people call out as the WoW-ification of 4E were already in existance in DnD before hand.
I would certainly disagree that any ideas they took away from MMORPGs were taken with the intent of appealing to the player base of those games. A mechanic or idea lifted here or there isn't going to draw those who play MMORPGs but not pen and paper RPGs to the table; I know that, as do the designers.
Cheers! :)
Yes, thank indie games for showing D&D the power of minion rules.
I agree with the OP about the lack of choices. But I thought people wanted balanced, niche-protecting roles. Why else would you keep classes?
|
I never imagined that anyone would someday retro-engineer the game this way to reselemble one of it's children like video games and WOW.Well, fortunately for you they didn't do that.Just to make sure, Cross.
You are saying that Hasbro did not design this edition **at all** to resemble video games and online RPG's in order to appeal to that potential customer base?
Not sure you will get too many people, even those who are rabid pro-4e to agree with that.
Did I misunderstand your statement?
A red flyer wagon has four wheels just like a car but they are very very different when it comes to operational capabilities.
4e does get some of its inspiration from games like WoW. I see that as a good thing. But like the wagon and the car the "resemblance" between D&D and WoW should not be confused for operational similarity. D&D 4e plays like a roleplaying game. It does not play like WoW. I know this first hand because I play both.
|
|
D&D 4e plays like a roleplaying game. It does not play like WoW. I know this first hand because I play both.
plays like a roleplaying game...but not like WoW. Isn't WoW an MMO-RolePlayingGame?
The point is moot, though. Mike Mearls, while not saying it very plainly, does insinuate that 4E was trying to make things more simplistic, like many MMOs.
|
|
D&D 4e plays like a roleplaying game. It does not play like WoW. I know this first hand because I play both.plays like a roleplaying game...but not like WoW. Isn't WoW an MMO-RolePlayingGame?
The point is moot, though. Mike Mearls, while not saying it very plainly, does insinuate that 4E was trying to make things more simplistic, like many MMOs.
WoW is as much a roleplaying game as Monopoly. Granted I have not been to any roleplaying servers so there could very well be some real roleplaying going on but over the years it became clear to me that WoW is an action video game.
But back to the whole "resemble" idea. Yes, 4e uses some names and conventions found in a typical MMO. That is very different from how it actually functions as a game. D&D and WoW resembled each other well before the advent of 4e. For all of their similarities they are still very very different games.
plays like a roleplaying game...but not like WoW. Isn't WoW an MMO-RolePlayingGame?
The point is moot, though. Mike Mearls, while not saying it very plainly, does insinuate that 4E was trying to make things more simplistic, like many MMOs.
While termed a MMORPG, games like WoW and EQ often contain about as much roleplaying as other computer-ized RPGs, such as Final Fantasy, or Temple of Elemental Evil. Admittedly, there is some RPing in MMORPGs, but it is very little, and generally only among small groups who strive to RP.
And just for the record, while MMOs might have the rep of being simplistic child's games, they are honestly extremely complicated. I've seen people write piles of formulas and theories related to how the games work. They're truly quite complex.
Cheers! :)
WoW is as much a roleplaying game as Monopoly. Granted I have not been to any roleplaying servers so there could very well be some real roleplaying going on but over the years it became clear to me that WoW is an action video game.
But back to the whole "resemble" idea. Yes, 4e uses some names and conventions found in a typical MMO. That is very different from how it actually functions as a game. D&D and WoW resembled each other well before the advent of 4e. For all of their similarities they are still very very different games.
True indeed. They both involve the players choosing a race and a class for his character, who has HPs, a numerical representation of their chance to hit with their attacks, and a numerical representation of their chance to be hit by their enemy's attacks. But in play, they are WAY different. I've been trying to get that across for what seems like forever now.
4E doesn't play like WoW. WoW is boring as hell, and 4E is fun. There's no comparison between the two on that score. Are there MMO influences to be found in 4E? Sure. And it's not surprising.
As for MMOs, both LOTRO and Vanguard are better than WoW, with Vanguard having the coolest crafting system I've come across and the coolest graphics, if you can run it.
A good, fair review. And five hours without a flame strike. That must be a record. Knock on wood...
You brought the bad ju-ju Duncan! Take it back, take it back! :P
I took it back but it was to late. I jinxed the thread. :-(
|
|
D&D 4e plays like a roleplaying game. It does not play like WoW. I know this first hand because I play both.
I play WoW too. All the players I play with play WoW or another MMO. They found 4e gameplay intuitive BECAUSE it played like WoW. I do not think it is a bad thing.
I know this is your opinion, but it seems you are in the minority with this one, and that you feel this kind of comment is a crack on 4e, which it is not. I think I like 4e BETTER because of this.
|
|
D&D 4e plays like a roleplaying game. It does not play like WoW. I know this first hand because I play both.I play WoW too. All the players I play with play WoW or another MMO. They found 4e gameplay intuitive BECAUSE it played like WoW. I do not think it is a bad thing.
I know this is your opinion, but it seems you are in the minority with this one, and that you feel this kind of comment is a crack on 4e, which it is not. I think I like 4e BETTER because of this.
I guess I should be a bit more detailed in my explanation.
Both 4e and WoW have a similar metaphor in that characters use powers of varying potency and frequency. It is easy to explain 4e powers to someone that plays WoW because of this. In other words a WoW player will get it.
But WoW does not have the same feel in combat and it certainly does not have the same feel out of combat.
D&D 4e and WoW, if drawn as a Venn diagram, would overlap more that WoW and 3e. My contention is that the overlap is not so large that 4e has become WoW with pen and paper.
The very fact that D&D is still a role playing game with free flowing story lines, improvisation, and real role playing keeps it a distinctly different game.
Sure - the similarities are enough to make them related but not enough to make them equivalent.
|
The very fact that D&D is still a role playing game with free flowing story lines, improvisation, and real role playing keeps it a distinctly different game.
Sure - the similarities are enough to make them related but not enough to make them equivalent.
What is not -or cannot be- a real role playing game nowdays ? And if i do not want to role play then i shouldn´t play 4E ?
|
|
I guess I should be a bit more detailed in my explanation.Both 4e and WoW have a similar metaphor in that characters use powers of varying potency and frequency. It is easy to explain 4e powers to someone that plays WoW because of this. In other words a WoW player will get it.
But WoW does not have the same feel in combat and it certainly does not have the same feel out of combat.
D&D 4e and WoW, if drawn as a Venn diagram, would overlap more that WoW and 3e. My contention is that the overlap is not so large that 4e has become WoW with pen and paper.
The very fact that D&D is still a role playing game with free flowing story lines, improvisation, and real role playing keeps it a distinctly different game.
Sure - the similarities are enough to make them related but not enough to make them equivalent.
You know, if everyone could draw a Venn diagram of what they wanted in a roleplaying game, and compare it to one for various games, if would be a lot easier to find something you like (and probably cool a few jets in the process). Everyone would be much happier knowing what game they were going into. Kind of like the old "gamer test graph" that WotC marketing did many years back.
Your reference to Shining Force (awesome series, btw!) reminds me of something a player at my table lamented last game. He wanted "cross" area attacks. If you've played Shining Force (or similar games) you probably know what he meant, but if not, his complaint was basicly:
He had an attack with this pattern
X X X
X O X
X X Xbut wanted an attack with this pattern
X
X O X
XHehe, I guess not that OT, sorry. Thanks for the review though. Glad you enjoyed it! :)
Wondered if anyone else played Shining Force. Perhaps one of the greatest series no one layed and probably the most D&D like RPG until Baldurs Gate. Did I mention I liked the minion rules?
|
|
Late 4th Ed Review.
Introduction
Here is my final review of 4th edition. It is somewhat late as the game was released a few weeks ago but I wanted some of the controversy to die down. Also I wanted to give it a go first. (...)
Nice review and largely in line with what I perceived of the rules so far.
To me the feel is like "return to basic D&D" in matters of complexity and amount of content plus some approximation to MMORPG w/o actually emulating them.
I am looking forward to DMing 4e and think that 4e will be a great way to get new players into the hobby. As soon as all powers are tried and people look for something new, I.d recommend to them to move on to 3.5/ PRPG, though:
If 4e is today's Basic D&D (and yes, splat books will certainly add to it), then 3.5/ PRPG is still today's Advanced D&D to me.
- Günther
Late 4th Ed Review.
Introduction
Here is my final review of 4th edition. It is somewhat late as the game was released a few weeks ago but I wanted some of the controversy to die down. Also I wanted to give it a go first. (...)
Nice review and largely in line with what I perceived of the rules so far.
To me the feel is like "return to basic D&D" in matters of complexity and amount of content plus some approximation to MMORPG w/o actually emulating them.
I am looking forward to DMing 4e and think that 4e will be a great way to get new players into the hobby. As soon as all powers are tried and people look for something new, I.d recommend to them to move on to 3.5/ PRPG, though:
If 4e is today's Basic D&D (and yes, splat books will certainly add to it), then 3.5/ PRPG is still today's Advanced D&D to me.
- Günther
Not a bad comparison maybe. DMing 4th ed was brilliant and I don't think I could run a weekly game of 3.5 again after playing 4th ed (maybe a monthly game?). I would be happy to play a game of 3.5 though if it was heavily houseruled.
Yeah I have not found the part in the DMG where is says:
I would agree with you if 4e did actually play like WoW, but it doesn't.
- make sure your players stand in the same area for two hours killing the same monsters with idiotic AI over and over using the same three powers.
- Fighting should never be challenging, only time consuming.
- When players want to travel make sure every step of the way plays out in real time to make the game as long and tedious as possible.
- When talking to NPCs be sure that there is only one possible response to whatever the NPCs say and make sure there is a way for the players to skip the NPCs speech since noone cares.
- Always remember: the game is all out being max level just keep dangling the carrot out further and make sure there is no fun to be had other than chasing it.
- Make sure it is not possible to play through the whole game as part of the 'story' players love grinding monsters endlessly and by making them follow a plot or talk to NPCs you are just slowing them down.
- Monsters are magic and come back to life after you kill them. This is so obvious it requires no explanation.
- Your players will be antisocial nerds so be sure to force them to interact regularly, they will either not talk at all or be hateful cretins to each other but thats just part of the fun.
- Give your players a list of emotions and actions their characters can perform, if something is not on the list they can not feel/do it.
- Worrying about positioning in combat just slows things down. Let your players stand on top of each other if they want and make tactical movement meaningless.
- Monsters all have one thing in common: Nearsightedness and deafness. If your players are more than 20 feet from a monster but are butchering it's children it will not notice or care. Just to mix things up make your monsters walk slowly around the battle map on a rigidly fixed schedule.
|
|
Not a bad comparison maybe. DMing 4th ed was brilliant and I don't think I could run a weekly game of 3.5 again after playing 4th ed (maybe a monthly game?). I would be happy to play a game of 3.5 though if it was heavily houseruled.
...enter PRPG... ;-) Really - I hope that Paizo doesn't shy away from using the best improvements from 4e without dispensing with PRPG's biggest advantages: backwards compatibility and a deep footing in traditional D&D editions: The optimal PRPG sported backwards compatibility and game feel of 3.5e while streamlining all the various game stoppers of 3.5e including high level encounter game play - and maybe denizens. ;-)
- Günther
I would agree with you if 4e did actually play like WoW, but it doesn't.
Your players will be antisocial nerds .....
This is the same in my group. I have never played WoW, but now I understand the analogy that 4e is like WoW. Or are you saying we will be popular if we play 4e? Will it help me get chicks? Oh, wait, I am married.
I am still unclear on one thing though.
How does the OP feel about the minion rules?
I am still unclear on one thing though.
How does the OP feel about the minion rules?
I think the OP is looking to bed the designer who made the minion rules and have his/her......minions?
Oh, wait, I am married.You can marry in WoW?
I don't know if this is a joke or not but I have unfortunately attended a few EQ weddings ...
Most of the time the actual players are getting married in RL, and have decided to marry their characters. Most of the time ...
Edit: I'll leave out the story of when my RL wife got married to someone else in game for brevity's sake ...
Further Edit: Not always, but often, GMs like to attend in-game weddings. They hand out nifty items like cake and punch. It's delicious!
